Farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of green hydrogen in Oshikoto Region, Namibia

Introduction: Commercial farmers in Namibia’s Oshikoto Region operate under drought, water scarcity, high agricultural input costs and uneven rural energy access. Although Namibia has prioritised green hydrogen within its industrial and energy strategies, limited farmer-level evidence explains how potential agricultural applications are understood and evaluated. Materials and methods: The study adopted an exploratory qualitative design grounded in interpretivism. Ten commercial farmers were recruited purposively, supplemented by convenience access and snowball referrals. Semi-structured interviews with video-assisted elicitation examined knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of green hydrogen, green ammonia and hydrogen-supported agricultural energy systems. The data were examined through deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Saturation was assessed through interview-by-interview comparison of codes and analytical memoranda. Results: Baseline responses showed limited operational knowledge of electrolysis, hydrogen storage, green ammonia production, irrigation-energy systems and associated safety requirements. Comparison of pre-video and post-video responses showed that the educational video increased the specificity of participants’ evaluations: participants became better able to identify possible agricultural applications and anticipated benefits. However, cross-participant comparison revealed substantial conditionality. Expected benefits relating to fertiliser costs, irrigation reliability, energy expenditure and economic opportunities coexisted with concerns about affordability, practical evidence, technical skills, infrastructure, water, safety, environmental management and institutional support. Contradictory and qualifying cases demonstrated that greater informational exposure did not produce uniform acceptance or firm adoption intentions. Conclusions: Selected green hydrogen applications may contribute to agricultural resilience where they are technically suitable, economically accessible, water-conscious and safely regulated. The findings provide contextual evidence of farmers’ anticipated evaluations and should not be interpreted as proof of technical viability, economic performance or adoption.